Well it could also be a lever or a switch.

Specially in say foggy conditions and little bit distance. At which point you won't clearly maybe differentiate individual elements and more like that's the rear and "block of light in middle, left and right". At which point it all little blending one might infact be under impression "the light intensity lowered at the rear, huh, not braking then, did they have they parking break dragging they released or something.... ohhhjj shuiiiiiit no it is braking hard".

My two cents from here north of Europe and land of snow, rain, fog and occasional white out conditions.

They are always on the case first. They have feelers through all the various church state separation orgs. As soon as one of the likes of freedom from religion foundation, ACLU etc. Hear about a case, someone is bound to send Lucien a message and would you look at that within days they have found a local Satanist to have standing.

Lucien sends smiling letter to the local government with "I heard there was religious freedom on offer, just give us a week we have the Baphomet statue dusted off from the temple and on the way there. It takes like 2 meters by 2 meters and 3 meters tall. You have free lawn available?"

Slashed tire doesn't justify threatening with deadly force. Since that is what it was. How are the protesters to know its a replica airsoft gun from distance and not a real firearm. Person was injured since this person caused a fearing their lives scattering and rampage of people.

Hence why he is in charge for menacing charge. Since that is what it is and why it is a crime. Since society knows just threatening with deadly force causes panic and leads to injuries and damage.

The right response to "someone slashed my tire" us to call the cops and should one catch the perpetrator red handed, take out the obiguitous camera phone and take evidence footage of the likely by now running away perpetrator and turn that evidence over to police. That call insurance company.

What are you gonna do, vote for the other party that definitely wants you dead or at the very least abused and subjugated?

You seem to forget there is a third option, the most likely option in such case. Just not turning up to vote at all.

Ahemmm just pure "they be crafty".... Like did UAW keep their ~~twitter~~ X account just so they thought "Will Elon be stupid enough to revoke us". Since it is clear sign of anti-union behavior by CEO of a car company by concrete act and well car company CEO can't exactly do that with atleast potentially getting in trouble. It won't suffice alone, but combine it with other actions by Tesla and UAW can argue "Tesla as company all the way to the CEO shows a consistent pattern of anti-union activity of actively hindering our union drives. That is supposed to be illegal".

Atleast I think UAW doesn't mind at all the publicity, this will cause for them "Automaker CEO revoked us, since all business is too conglomerized to too few hands and control way too much of the business"

However I would note... France has rule about no crosses or cross wearing in schools. So it isn't like Islam is being singled out. Well this specific rule is about them, but France has very wide rule of "no religious clothing, items or symbols" in school and they don't much pick sides. Jewish kids... No kippas, Protestants and Catholics, no crosses, Muslims, no head scrafs, no face veils, no religious robes. Sikhs, no turbans.

So it isn't xenophobic, since the local majority religion is also under rules of "no religious symbols wearing".

What one can say is, that it is highly anti-religious. However that isn't same thing as xenophobic or say specifically antisemitic or islamophobic. Islamophobic would be "Muslim girls aren't allowed to wear scarfs, but it's okay for catholic girls to wear crosses".

French government "doesn't like" the local traditional majority religion either.

One absolutely can argue about "is it too much restriction of religious liberty in general", however one can't argue "well but this is about jews or muslims". It isn't. This specific rule about abayas is mostly a technocratic decision based on wider political decision of "we have principle of no religious displays in school". It was decided "oh yeah, we missed this one religious clothing wearing/display. Add it to the long list of specified banned religious displays of all kinds".

I'm sure, if member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster tried to walk to French school with colander on their head, the courts would rule "no colander hats either, that is religious display also. You can go join the Jewish and Sikhs on the club house of "France banned our religious hat" club.

You know a stale mate is a possible state of war. One side doesn't always have to be winning and the other losing.

Oh you aren't getting it for free. You just pay for it to T-mobile, instead of directly to Netflix. Never yet heard of a company, that offers actual freebies. You just pay for it in the price of the other thing you are paying them for.

Buy glasses, get second pair for free... .... ... you pay price of two for one pair and aren't just very well aware how cheap eye glasses are to make these days.

EU is not in it's first Rodeo.

• refusing to make batteries, covered, regulation demands 5 years of supplying spare batteries from the putting of the last unit of the product model to the market
• yanking prices sky high, covered, regulation says spare batteries must be offered at reasonable cost and non-discriminatory basis
• software locking out third party batteries, covered, regulation say software cannot be used to impede using compatible batteries.
• trying to get money via selling special tools, covered, special tools can't be demanded to be used to disassemble the product to change the battery, unless said tools is provided free of charge with the product.

Not EU's first rodeo.

I really don’t think they should be dictating how companies must design their products.

Like say telling to automakers they must include this design feature called seat belt and this another design feature called airbag? Also EU isn't dictating anything about the design. They are giving regulation on minimum technical features. How to design within that minimal technical requirement is free for the maker to decide. Just as say there is minimum technical regulation about safety of electric appliances in general.

Again poor, poor companies being told by the regulation they can't use their favourite "design feature" of "exposed uninsulated power wirings " on their products.

Regulations have existed and will exist. Companies operate at the please of society offering them a market to operate in. Offering such things as contracts needing to be honored, people not just being allowed to steal their property, enjoying the protected relative piece of national military keeping the mongol horde away and so on. In exchange the businesses shall play by the rules society sets.

This matter was decided by the duly elected representatives of the EU citizenry (directly as the European Parliament and more indirectly the national democratically elected governments in the Council. Well except maybe governments of Hungary and Poland.... ... ...). This is the will of the European society, so this stands.

Well firstly case ruling is more thumbs up emoji does count in this very specific case. It isn't universal ruling, but very specific ruling tied to the circumstances of the case regarding existing business relationship, previous communication about the contract, the actual sending of contract and then being asked to confirm he is happy with the actual final contract and confirms it. Process that had happened many times before regarding various produce delivery contracts. Only this time he messaged back thumbs up instead of writing into the chat "Yeah, I agree", "that contract is okay" or so on.

They tried to argue, no i just thumbed up on "I received the file". But court said, you were specifically asked to a confirm contract that you had discussed in positive and willing enter into way and then displayed positive signal. Reasonable person could assume you meant "Yes, I confirm".

So no not every thumbs up is contract agreement. Someone sends you out of the blue a contract and you message back thumbs up, it isn't contract agreement. context matters.

I guess the lesson is, don't adapt habit of confirming contracts in informal ways, since then your informal communication can be interpreted as contractual agreement. Since you have precedence of having previously entered and honored contracts agreed on similarly non-formal ways.

Like... Take the contract image, print it, sign it, scan it back and then send it back with "Yes I agree, here is the signed contract" or "I always digitally sign my agreements to digitally sent contracts". Then one can argue I never just thumb up to contract and the other party knows it. I always previously digitally signed them, why would it be reasonable for them to accept lesser signal of agreement. I specifically told them in previous conversation I always formally digital signing the contract. Whether they verify the digital signature algorhitmically or not, I always send it back formally signed. It is my way and behaviour to avoid ambiguity.